Dogs and Wolves

Test time here!

"True" or "false": 

Dogs are not wolves.

If you said "True"....oops, you flunked. While there are minor differences, dogs and wolves actually belong to the same genus and species.

But you certainly would not be alone in this belief. Plenty of conventional authors and canine "nutritionists" are calling attention to an article published in "Nature" magazine Jan 23, 2013. This article claims that dogs have only recently developed the ability to digest carbohydrates. We now see many canine nutrition websites blaring the headline: "DOGS ARE NOT WOLVES"! The purpose of such sensational and misleading headlines seems to be to justify the pet food industry's continued abuse of dogs' digestive systems by intentionally feeding them a carbohydrate-based diet like kibbled dog food.


What this study does not highlight, however, is the fact that, genetically, dogs ARE wolves. Based on genetic research done by evolutionary and molecular biologist Dr. Robert Wayne at UCLA, in 1993, dogs were re-classified from Canis familiaris" to "Canis lupus" ssp "familiaris"

In other words, dogs are the same genus and species as the gray wolf. They are merely a subspecies of the grey wolf and do not differ significantly from the grey wolf. All breeds of dogs are still just variations on the grey wolf.

Let's repeat that again, for emphasis. In all significant ways, there is no meaningful difference between the grey wolf and the dog. The gray wolf and the dog share 99.8% of the same mitochondrial DNA. For comparison, the gray wolf and the coyote only share 96% of the same mitochondrial DNA. Dogs are directly descended from the gray wolf, sharing their anatomy and physiology.

The basic definition of a species is the ability to breed and produce fertile offspring, and dogs bred to wolves produce fertile offspring.

Simply because selective breeding in dogs has produced various types and colors, sizes and shapes does not mean that dogs are a separate species from wolves. It's been long established that dogs and the gray wolf have the same genes, and the same basic anatomy and physiology. Based on appearance alone, dog breeds are more dissimilar from each other than these breeds are from their prototype ancestor, the grey wolf. Are Chihuahuas a different type of animal than a Scottish Deerhound? Nope. Any difference wrought by human selective breeding could be wiped out in just a generation or two of breeding back to the grey wolf.

However, let's examine the digestive tract, which seems to be the "proof" that is spurring this recent claim that because dogs can digest carbohydrates, they are therefore separate and distinct from wolves. Dogs and wolves both have jaws that move only up and down, not side to side, with teeth that mesh in a scissors-type fashion. Their sharp pointed teeth are meant for shearing, not grinding. They are carnivores. Omnivores and herbivores have flat molars and jaws that can move in a side-to-side fashion designed for grinding grains, fruits and vegetables. Neither dogs nor wolves have saliva that produce amylase (the enzyme that begins digestion of starch in the mouth). Dogs and wolves both have short intestinal tracts, designed for quick digestion of proteins and fats. Vegetable matter takes many hours to digest and process in an animal's gut. Unless carbohydrates in the diet are highly processed and refined, they are not able to be digested and absorbed by dogs.

And we all know how much valuable nutrition is left in processed, refined foods, right? Think white flour or white rice. Nothing left there but "empty calories"....or so dieticians have informed us for years. Virtually no vitamins or minerals remain after processing. But now, we are supposed to believe that empty calories are beneficial for our canine pals.

The dog's liver produces all the vitamin C he ever needs. No need to derive that from fruits. There is, however, a significant need for specific amino acids in large quantities in the diet, particularly during growth and development. Proteins that are complete, in significant amounts, are necessary to keep a dog healthy. Rather than try to keep complete proteins at the essential bare minimum, dogs should be fed more in line with their natural diet which is protein-rich. No need to feed your dog on the "minimum wages of nutrition" that are so stingily provided in commercial foods.

It is well-documented in multiple studies that unless a dog has kidney or liver disease, protein in the diet does not pose any sort of health risk whatsoever. Even elderly dogs with compromised kidney function related to old age do better with higher protein than was currently believed to be "safe".

The fact that dogs (and wolves) can ingest some carbohydrate-based foods is not a secret, nor is it any new development. Check any scientific wolf website and you will find that wolves do eat fruits, vegetables and berries in small amounts. However, at issue is the huge percentage of carbohydrates that we feed the domestic dog in the way of commercial dog food. (Usually well over 50% carbs). No wolf or indeed any canid can remain healthy on a diet that is primarily grain-based carbohydrates.

In fact, recent studies on HUMAN diet demonstrates that high amounts of carbohydrates are unhealthy for us, too. Since mankind began to farm, and agriculture "improved" our lives to provide us a diet based on grains, the human brain has become significantly smaller. Vegetarian humans also have smaller brains than their omnivorous counterparts. Hmmm. Why even herbivores like cows are said to thrive more healthily on diets where they graze on natural grasses and vegetation instead of being fed strictly grains in a feed lot.

Evolution over 10,000 years of domestication has failed to produce any significant mutations that separate dogs from wolves to the extent that they have evolved into a different species.

For some reason, folks out there....veterinarians, dog food companies, canine "advisors"...are just itching to turn back the clock of genetic science and molecular biology and convince us that dogs and wolves are DIFFERENT. After all, you can tell just by looking at them...it's obvious, right?

Wrong again. Looks only show us the characteristics that man has intentionally bred for. All those characteristics had their potential in the genetic makeup of the wolf. THAT is what should be obvious to anyone with a background in science.

It's convenient for some to attempt to justify the recommendation for feeding a cheap diet based on grains, and to try to support the status quo of using inferior foodstuffs from the dregs of the human food chain, but it also is disingenuous to our claim of caring enough about our dogs to want to provide them with optimal nutrition.

GMO - Hazard or Hype?

GMO foods – should we be worried? What about all that GMO corn in the kibble we feed our dogs?


There has been a modern movement in opposition to foods that are genetically modified. Here in California, there was recently a proposition presented to the voters that would have required labeling of foods that contained materials derived as a result of genetic engineering. I am genuinely surprised that prop 37 didn't pass, because usually the electorate votes based on emotion, not logic. Additionally, European countries have "banned" (if it were possible to physically do so) GMO foods to appease the fears of their populace. However, a bit of research on genetic engineering might surprise you regarding the benefits of such methods.

What is “genetic modification” of foods? The process involves the science of splicing genes into the DNA of the original organism. Sounds ominous, right? Some of these genes are from related organisms, like other plants. Some of the genes are from completely unrelated organisms, like bacteria. Now before you get too upset at the prospect of genes being added where they seemingly don't belong, consider this. All plants and animals derive a large proportion of their existing DNA from viruses that infected their ancestors. (1)

Genetic modification of foods can confer on them a desired quality without waiting for random chance/mutation from nature to help out (which may never occur).

The best example is the papaya crop. The Hawaiian papaya crop was nearly wiped out in the 1990s by the ringspot virus. There does not exist a cure or a preventive treatment for this virus. Genetic modification produced a papaya resistant to the virus, and today, >80% of the Hawaiian papaya crop is the GMO variety. With absolutely NO evidence that there is any harm to anyone from eating a papaya, or consuming foods made with the enzyme papain which is derived from papayas, why should every papaya and every prepared food containing papain (meat tenderizers etc) be labelled for consumers to reject out of unfounded fears?

Crops have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits, such as resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. Some are bred for drought tolerance, increased crop amount or size of grain/fruit, and improved shelf life. There is even a variety of rice that has been genetically modified to be yellow, and loaded with healthy beta-carotene. Nice!

Admittedly, herbicide resistant crops are problematic because then farmers tend to spray more weed-killers, which are not desirable to have in our foods, but one can always look for labelled "organic" produce to avoid that. But it is not the modified food itself that may be bad for us, it's the herbicides that are thrown on top on the crops.

There has been a much-touted study done on the effect of GMO corn on rats; this study has even been cited by health groups like Kaiser healthcare in their health newsletter. However, researcher bias was evident and the study was profoundly flawed. The study used very small sample sizes of only ten animals per group, including the control group. WAY too small to produce any reliable results. They also used a strain of rats prone to develop cancer. Oddly enough, the study found that rats who consumed the largest amount of GMO foods lived the longest, and it also showed that rats who consumed the most Roundup (herbicide) lived the longest! The control group also developed cancer, but the moderate GMO consumption group developed a higher percentage of cancer than the control group. This study is, in effect, BUNK. (2)

On the other hand, there are multiple independent studies done on GMO foods that verify their safety. Many of these studies have been conducted independently of the biotech and food industries. (3)

Another example of unfounded fears is the modification of crops for worm-resistance. Many crops have been modified with genes from Bt. Bt, or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a bacteria that has been applied to crops for decades as a natural pest control. It selectively kills worms and guess what, it is completely nontoxic to humans and other animals. Actually, the use of Bt is considered compatible with organic gardening! Bt is applied to crops right up to the day of harvest. You have eaten Bt for years!!! I myself use Bt on my tomatoes to kill the darn nasty green hornworms.

There is a particular chemical in the Bt bacteria that causes worms's digestive systems to fail and subsequently kills them. Scientists have been able to isolate that particular protein, insert the gene that produces it into the plant so that it will produce it without having us spray the crops with Bt (a hit-or-miss process, and economically impractical for anyone with a large-scale agricultural operation). et Voila Natural crop resistance to worms!

Most genetically modified crops are sold as commodities, which are further processed into foodstuffs. Large amounts of soy are produced for use as livestock feed. If there were something harmful in those foods, our animals used for meat would be dropping in droves, as would we for eating them.

Vegetable oil used for frying, cooking, shortening, margarine, sauces, soups, mayonnaise etc is produced almost exclusively from GMO-derived crops. These ingredients go into almost all of our foods!! However, the refining process removes proteins produced by the genes that have been inserted, and leaves just oil.

To give you an example of how widespread GMO foods are, at last tally, 95% of the US soybean crop is genetically modified. 93% of the US canola crop is genetically modified. 86% of the US corn crop is genetically modified, while 95% of sugar beets are genetically modified. 93% of the cotton crop (cottonseed oil) is GM cotton. In addition, pollen from the genetically modified types crosses with neighboring non-GMO crops, making it practically impossible to definitely pronounce that any certain crop is absent GM genes. The vast majority of our foods would have to be labelled that they are derived from genetic engineering.

The FDA does need to promote standardized testing for such crops, in order to make sure that along with the desired trait there are not other problems included, such as increased allergens for those who are sensitive.

Remember, those people who produce the crops eat food too. They would be foolish to introduce something risky into the food chain that their own families will be eating.

Proposition 37 would have required labelling and the ability to bring suit without any proof of damages if they allege a food is improperly labelled. This seemed to me to be nothing more than a shakedown effort by trial lawyers for easy money. And it would have promoted unfounded fears about foods.

(1) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120423153138.htm
(2) http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/
(3) http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

The Russian Roulette Diet

Having done extensive research on canine nutrition, I noted with interest Caroline Coile's article "How Would You Like That Cooked?" in the August issue of the AKC Gazette. However, eager anticipation soon gave way to disappointment as I realized that the article included flawed studies and reasoning commonly spouted by the staunchest critics of raw diets. There was some valid information, but the poor data predominated.


A study was cited that found that cats fed frozen raw rabbit developed taurine deficiency, while those fed a commercial kibble did not. There are several problems with this study. First, it only included cats with malabsorption issues. It is well known from human studies that highly refined and processed foods are more easily digested by those with malabsorptive digestive disorders. It is possible that the underlying health condition caused the difficulty with taurine absorption, and not the food itself. A commercial food is, in effect, "predigested" by being highly processed, a situation that may be beneficial for animals with malabsorption problems.


A diet consisting exclusively of rabbit is not advisable because taurine levels in rabbit are much lower than other meats. A 2003 UC Davis lab study tabulated taurine content in various meats fed to pets:


Whole rabbit carcass ....... 373 (+/- 399) mg taurine per kilogram wet weight
Chicken dark meat.......... 1690 (+/- 370) mg taurine per kilogram wet weight
Turkey dark meat .......... 3960 (+/- 690) mg taurine per kilogram wet weight
clams fresh ................. 2400mg taurine per kilogram wet weight

So if the kibble-fed cats had a diet that included other meats that just rabbit, and was supplemented with powdered taurine as well, they of course were not as prone to develop taurine deficiency as those fed rabbit exclusively. The act of freezing may be a consideration too. It is possible that freezing may destroy taurine, just as high heat cooking does. Grinding also destroys taurine.

And, we might need to remind ourselves, cats are not dogs. Dogs can produce at least some taurine from other amino acids, while cats cannot.

The take home message from this study is that frozen, ground raw rabbit should not comprise the sole diet for months on end of cats with malabsorption problems. That's it! This is even more evidence of the need for variety in the diet.

Then, a large portion of the artice was devoted to bacterial contamination of food. That section highlighted concerns about salmonella. It is interesting to note that a large percentage of all dogs carry salmonella, regardless of diet. The AVMA admits that, based on studies done on kibble-fed dogs, a full 36% carry salmonella in their GI tracts. Salmonella can be transmitted to dogs from humans, and salmonella is also, incidentally, transmitted to humans from other humans, not just by food or kisses from a pet. Salmonella is in the environment, and is a natural part of life for our pets, and for us too. Naturally, it can be a concern for the immunocompromised.


However, commercial dried foods have been recalled for salmonella contamination frequently; more often than raw diets. Once a food is processed at high heat, all microbes, both good and bad, are killed. This leaves the resultant meal in effect a petri dish, ready to be overrun by the first disease-causing micro-organism the food comes in contact with after processing. There no longer are beneficial bacteria in the food to help keep disease-causing organisms in check.


I would be interested to see the 2009 study the article refers to, that claims NO pathogens in the stools of kibble-fed dogs. I would be very skeptical of such results. I have seen multiple other studies out of University of Guelph, cited as part of an agenda to ban therapy dogs from partaking of a raw diet. However, studies used as "evidence" have been either statistically insignificant due to small numbers, or did not include a group of dogs fed kibble. In the studies with large numbers of participating dogs, most all of them have done a great job of highlighting the bacteria in the stool of raw fed dogs while ignoring the significant amount of pathogens in the stool of kibble-fed dogs. In most studies, the amount of pathogens is comparable and for some pathogens (such as C. difficile and MRSA) the rates are significantly HIGHER in kibble-fed dogs.

The article seems to attempt to justify use of highly processed "sterilized" commercial pet food by highlighting overblown salmonella risks. If the risk of transmission of salmonella varied with diet, then health care personnel would be ordered to not to eat peanut butter, almonds, eggs, mayonnaise, a rare-cooked burger, strawberries, or any of the other foods that have been found to carry salmonella. 

An example of a raw diet included in Ms. Coile's article involved the practice of feeding racing greyhounds inferior foods. It should go without saying that when feeding a home-made diet, the ingredients should be fresh; not stale, rotting or rancid.  Concerns about parasites are certainly valid, and the reason that even most raw feeding advocates do not recommend feeding of raw fish or raw game animals. Deep freezing can also help reduce the risk of parasites.

Ms. Coile's article pointed to studies that analyzed home-prepared recipes, claiming they were "unbalanced". This thought process is also flawed, as home-prepared diets are based on the concept of variety rather than eating the same, homogenized recipe each and every day. You do not need "balance" in each bite. What is needed is balance over time. This wrong-headed thinking about balance needed in each bite comes from the habit of opening a bag and pouring out the same dry formula every day, day after day.

A diet made of shredded shoe leather, motor oil and ground coal could also pass AAFCO certification as "complete and balanced". Still, it's certainly not something I'd like to feed my pet.


In this article, much ado was made of nutrient deficiency or excess in home prepared diets, but nothing is mentioned about the multitude of deaths and recalls related to the use of "balanced" commercial foods. These foods can be dangerously "imbalanced" and it is a most serious situation when the naive consumer buys and feeds one food exclusively, trusting it to be "complete and balanced".

Vitamins and minerals have to be supplemented in commercial diets due to the poor quality and overprocessing of the ingredients used. When measurements are off, the results can be deadly. Many deaths and recalls have resulted due to thiamine deficiency, the most recent in 2011 by Wellness brand. In 2006, Mars' Royal Canin brand was recalled due to massive overdosing of Vitamin D. Other vitamins and minerals have been problematic over the years in commercial "balanced" diets, including zinc, calcium, and Vitamin A. Then there are the hazards of incidental ingredients such as fluoride in rock phospate, an ingredient included in almost all pet foods to provide minerals. We also find potential carcinogenic preservatives and even drugs like pentobarbital and tylenol in some commercial pet foods.

You can be certain of three things: death, taxes and future recalls for mycotoxins in pet foods. Recalls for deadly aflatoxicosis and vomitoxicosis are common; the risk for those is unavoidable in commercial foods where dry ingredients sit in warehouses prior to production, and then once manufactured, the food sits on a shelf for months prior to purchase. High levels of aflatoxins kill outright, but chronic, longterm consumption of low levels of aflatoxins (present in virtually ALL kibbles) eventually produces liver cancer.

Let's not forget the frequent recalls for metal shavings and pieces; as well as the horrific 2007 near-universal contamination with melamine and cyanuric acid which were INTENTIONALLY added to foods to make protein content look higher. I daresay such "ingredients" are just as risky (if not more risky) to dogs as any bone fragment in a raw diet ever was. Bones don't kill thousands of dogs in one fell swoop.

Commercial diets have killed countless dogs, yet we are left with the impression in the closing statement that "dogs are living longer than ever now on diets formulated for health."

Is there actual evidence that dogs really are living longer today, on average, than those who lived decades ago? And if so, is that attributable to diet or to other factors? Yes, many owners ARE feeding their pets higher quality foods today; and not necessarily just commercial, over-processed foods. But aside from that, fewer dogs are allowed to roam these days, reducing the possibility of accidental death which was the major cause of death "back in the day". There have been great advances in veterinary care, and more and more pet owners these days take their pets in for routine care and dental cleanings, thereby promoting a longer life. On the other side of the coin, some breeds suffer from genetic health problems that shorten lifespans, and these factors are unrelated to diet or quality of veterinary care. So please let's not jump to conclusions about lifespans based on nonexistent, faulty or incomplete evidence.

We need to quit relying on meals poured from a bag, and begin to use our common sense when feeding our animals. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to formulate a balanced diet for dogs; just a bit of information. Look for some of the many excellent canine diet resources available now. Lew Olson, a canine nutritionist, has a book out on raw and natural nutrition for dogs and has great articles on her website; http://www.b-naturals.com/

A good eye-opener to the perils of commercial canine cuisine is Ann Martin's book "Food Pets Die For". Another interesting book with good research is "See Spot Live Longer" by Steve Brown and Beth Taylor.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the AVMA, BVMA, and the CVMA may have opposition to a raw diet (as stated by Ms. Coile) not because of health concerns, but rather due to a conflict of interest brought about by the financial support these groups garner from the pet food industry. Perhaps the AKC and the "Gazette" have a similar conflict, considering the heavy advertising and financial support they accept from Purina and Eukanuba. I can think of no other reason for AKC to print such a biased and flawed article on diet for dogs in the "Gazette".

Feeding commercial kibble? You may well be playing "Russian Roulette" with your dog's life.

"Pet Food: A Dog's Breakfast"

 I found a link to watch this video online. http://www.viddler.com/explore/jennifergoodwin/videos/4/

This show was in general very disappointing. They did not present anything about the process of rendering and the resultant poor quality fats and protein meals that form the lion's share of pet food ingredients. The persistant dangers of mycotoxins in kibbles didn't get a mention at all. The risk of bacterial contamination of a raw diet is mentioned without any mention of the fact that kibbles have been recalled more often for salmonella than any commercial raw diet.

The use of old, stale grains was not mentioned, the impression was that the corn and rice etc are no different than what we people eat. An entire section is devoted to comparing cheap with "premium" kibbles and it is stated that there is no difference...but they are basing that on the nutritional analysis which is actually not any gauge of quality in any pet food. What they should have been comparing is kibbled "pet food" with FRESH food. But that didn't happen.


Label comparisons by veterinary students in school? Not very helpful in teaching them about advising clients on what constitutes an appropriate diet. A vet who "trusts" dog food companies was spotlighted too, and there was no counter to her notions of how healthful some of these heavily processed foods actually might be.


One woman (dog nutritionist?) baked up her own kibble. Her point was that using poor quality ingredients can make a palatable food....but I think her point got lost in the shuffle.....it actually looked like something that might be tasty and delicious. And, we know that there is no kibble that is baked in the oven.....except maybe that one premium brand "Flint River Ranch"......I did like the demo on how a mixture of shoe leather, motor oil and sawdust would make a food that meets the standards....that should have been included early on in the show. By the time they got to it, I was frustrated to death with this lackluster presentation.


So what if there is more corn in her kibble than meat? So what if fish heads are used? Did they mention that the meat scraps, fish heads etc are rendered into a glop and then dried into a non-nutritious meal? Did they mention about how rendering and extruding breaks down the essential amino acids to create deficiency problems?? A few minor details left out. Hey dogs have eaten man's dinner scraps for thousands of years, no big deal to most viewers, right?


There was no mention of the reasons WHY grains and carbs are not optimal feed, except one mention that cats are carnivores and should not be fed grains. Another mention that the grains lose nutrients when cooked. There really was no sense of urgency in this production about the ingredients used or the true depth of the overprocessing....feeding kibble is not comparable to feeding your kidds pizza for your kids, as was suggested in this show. That made it sound sort of like kibble is a fun food! Good lord!


Their presented solution is more regulation of pet food, as if that will make it safer. Overprocessed, poor quality dry food cannot be made any more healthy or safe.....IMHO, the solution is to educate the public to stop buying commercial pet food and instead feed a fresh diet!

This is the companion article to the documentary, : http://www.scribd.com/doc/12296452/Whats-Cookin-Ever-Wonder-What-Happens-to-Dead-Animals

Risky Business

Truth is, commercial pet food is mostly garbage.

That's right, you heard me correctly. It's garbage.

"OK, fine!" you might say. "Dogs love to eat garbage....and they are even expert poop 'recyclers'! There's no food on the planet that can be a worse for them than poop, right? How bad can pet food garbage really be? Companies have to label it honestly, and they can't sell it if it isn't safe. Right?"

Wrong. As many thousands of owners of pets who were sickened and killed by their dog food will tell you. Dead Wrong.

The undisputed fact is that pet food is composed of the waste products from the food industry.

To make a pet food into that familiar crunchy hard kibble, it is necessary to use mostly dry ingredients. Dry foodstuffs like "meals" are used, along with large quantities of grain products, starches such as peas and potatoes, and dried plant proteins known as "glutens". Add to the mix other non-nutritious ingredients like beet pulp (fiber), rock phosphate for minerals (carrying with it a high load of incidental fluoride) and of course the nondescript "by-products". Some sort of preservative is needed for a long shelf life. These ingredients are then extruded under extreme high heat and pressure into the final kibble-foromed product. As we know from studies on people, overprocessed food lose much of their nutritional value. When you feed kibble, you certainly are not providing your pet with anything that could be fairly considered life-sustaining, much less healthful.

Canned food has the advantage of moistness, lack of chemical preservatives, and improved palatablity. However, the meat used in pet food whether it is canned or kibbled, is amost invariably what is referred to as "4D"..... from Dead, Diseased, Dying or Disabled animals. Yes, even most premium brands use 4D meats.

Another disturbing discovery is the use of rendered companion animals in the ingredient tagged as "meat meal". In the 1990s, some vets reported that dogs seemed to be developing a tolerance to pentobarbital, the drug used to euthanize them. Were they somehow ingesting low doses of pentobarbital? Pentobarbital is never used to kill animals who are destined to be food; it is only used to kill companion animals. Was pentobarbital in pet food? There would have only been one way it could have gotten there...by including the remains of euthanized pets in the meat meals that were produced by rendering plants

In 1998, the FDA did a random sampling of commercial pet foods to check for pentobarbital. Shockingly, 31 of the 37 brands tested had measurable amounts of the toxic drug. A followup study in 2000 found that the highest levels of pentobarbital were found in Ol' Roy, Kibbles and Bits, and Pet Gold. Other popular brands like Purina Pro Plan and Nutro Premium also tested positive for pentobarbital.

The uncomfortable fact is that companion animal carcasses have long been accepted by plants who specialize in "rendering". These carcasses join the dead, diseased livestock and road kill and are ground up, boiled at high temperatures and separated into fats and "meat". This "meat" is then further dried to produce a "meat meal." Meat meal is a major ingredient in many brands of commercial pet foods...and the Pentobartital evidence trail proves that companion animals have been a part of the mix...despite denials by the pet food companies.

So how can we avoid pet food made up of "4D" animals or recycled pets? You can look for a label that touts "human grade" meat, but there is no requirement and certainly no guarantee that "human grade" is ever actually used.

AAFCO is the industry group that certifies pet foods as "complete and balanced", usually with their stamp of approval right on the label! AAFCO is made up of individuals from the pet food industry. In effect, the industry polices itself. The fox is guarding the henhouse.

AAFCO certification means simply that the food in question lists a nutrient profile on the label that meets predetermined criteria for fat and protein content. Alternatively, a certification by AAFCO might mean that a feeding trial was done. To pass an AAFCO feeding trial, 6 out of 8 animals must complete a 26 week course of a steady diet of that particular diet without showing clinical or pathological signs of nutritional deficiency or excess. And 6 of the 8 must not lose over 15% of their initial starting weight. This is supposed to prove that the food is "complete and balanced"? Lack of weight loss is not exactly a ringing endorsement. In my estimation, AAFCO certification is completely worthless.

Think about it for about ten seconds. Dogs and cats are carnivores. How can a food based primarily on grains and carbs, with a bit of "4D" meat thrown into the mix, possibly supply them the necessary vital nutrition? Instead of fresh meats and vegetables, our pets are consuming the sweepings from granary floors, fibrous wastes from beet sugar production, and grains that have been warehoused so long that they are often rancid and infested with mites and mold. Proteins are derived in large part from vegetable sources like wheat, corn and soybeans....and dogs and cats cannot effectively digest plant-derived protein. The little meat included in commercial pet food is "rendered" from dead, diseased, dying and disabled animals.

But the proof is certainly in the pudding, as events in recent years have demonstrated. Recalls occur regularly. Most frightening are deaths due to contaminants like poisonous mold, which naturally grows on stored foodstuffs and produces toxic chemicals that are known as "aflatoxins". Equally horrifying were thousands of pet deaths due to eating food that included glutens tainted with melamine and cyanuric acid. Melamine and cyanuric acid are both high-nitrogen substances. They were illegally cut into glutens to increase the bulk of the product as a way to cut costs. Thankfully, the melamine problem seems to have abated with vigilant monitoring. However, aflatoxins remain an ongoing concern, with a recent recall by Kroger in over 10 states in December 2010 due to high levels of cancer-causing aflatoxins. Aflatoxins, produced by mold on foodstuffs, cause liver damage and liver cancer with long-term low dose exposure, or can kill outright at higher doses by inducing liver failure.

Even more damning evidence of the hypocrisy of the claims of "complete and balanced" pet food lies in the many recalls for vitamin or mineral insufficiencies or, conversely, toxic overdoses. We've seen recalls for lack of vitamin A...something that carnivores have traditionally depended on their meat and organ-based diet to provide. Plant-based beta carotene is useless to dogs and cats as they cannot convert it to vitamin A. Most recently, in 2009, thiamine deficiency in pet food caused deaths. There have been recalls for toxic vitamin D excesses and zinc overdoses.

Contamination with Salmonella, a bacteria that can cause diarrhea and illnes, and often cited as a concern with raw foods, actually has been the source of multiple recalls of dry kibbled pet foods. Apparently, when food is cooked until all microorganisms, both good and bad, are dead, you have just created a petri dish ripe for growing unchecked colonies of the first bacteria or fungus that happens to come in contact with that food. Oops!

The heavy overprocessing of meats used in pet foods degrades vital amino acids including taurine. This often causes actual taurine deficiency disease, manifested by cardiomyopathy. So lets cook the hell out of the food and then make a feeble attempt to add taurine back in? Wrong solution to the problem; taurine is abundant in fresh meats.

Most supplements, including the powdered taurine supplement that is added to pet foods, are exclusively sourced from China, leaving us with no safe haven when it comes to additives in our food supply. The glutens tainted with melamine and cyanuric acid were also sourced from China. I'm doubtful that this new world global economy is beneficial to either us or our pets.

Tainted ingredients are often found in different brands during recalls because dozens of different pet food brands are often made in the same production plant. Yes, even the premium brands are produced right alongside the grocery store brands by large "co-packers". Contaminants have been shared among various brands in recent recalls, premium foods as well as grocery store brands .

Transforming garbage into cash is a magical feat that has been perfected by these pet food industry giants. Is it any wonder that pet food companies are able to sponsor dog shows, and heavily lobby the veterinary schools with grants and freebies intended to push their products on society? You'll notice that most vets foolishly advise owners against feeding their pets fresh foods prepared at home.

Carnivores like dogs and cats rely on their traditional diet of fresh foods to keep them healthy and happy. Give your dog a bone. Give your dog some fresh ground beef, or maybe a chicken wing or back. Scramble him up an egg. Share your fish dinner with him. But please, say NO to commercial pet foods.

Sadly, many out there are so indoctrinated to commercial pet foods that they will remain skeptical of this information. "My pets are just fine and I've fed XXXXX brand for years!" they proclaim. This is comparable to playing a game of Russian Roulette with our pets' lives. And, sadly, for those who die, in hindsight the risk could easily have been avoided.

I rest much easier at night since I made the switch to frozen raw or sun-dried meats, and since I made the decision to share my freshly prepared ricotta cheese and egg casserole with my dogs.

And I cringe whenever I see that bag of "Ol' Roy" dog food ready for checkout in the cart ahead of me at WalMart!

More info:

http://www.homevet.com/petcare/foodbook.html

http://seespotlivelonger.com/seespotbook.html

Info on mycotoxins:

http://vetmed.iastate.edu/diagnostic-lab/diagnostic-services/diagnostic-sections/chemistry-/-toxicology/mycotoxins

And here is a recent Saturday Night Live spot that is more factual than they might realize! A fictional ad for "Mostly Garbage" dog food:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/99942/saturday-night-live-mostly-garbage-dog-food

Gosh that never gets old! I love that SNL spot!

Salmonella in DRY pet foods

Extruded under tremendous heat and pressure, dry dog food lacks the beneficial probiotic organisms that exist in fresh foods. Kibble are sort of a smorgasbord or petri dish; a rich, sterile field on which the first organism that happens to contact it after it is produced can flourish where there are no competing "good" organisms.

Now, we have a report of Salmonella outbreaks in humans linked to dry pet foods. Delta, how do you like them apples? Check this out:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100809/sc_livescience/drypetfoodlinkedtohumansalmonellaoutbreak

The moral of the story? Just say NO to kibble. Fresh is best. Sorry to burst your bubble, Purina and Delta!

Canine Nutritionist writes a letter to Delta

Dear Delta Society,

While checking http://www.google.com to investigate your claims of raw protein causing a significant shed of pathogens in the dog's stool, I found the largest amount of information on an internet search shows that dry dog food is the biggest offender of carrying salmonella contamination:

http://www.webmd.com/news/20080915/salmonella-risk-prompts-pet-food-recall
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/diet-fitness/digestive-disorders/articles/2008/11/06/salmonella-outbreak-tied-to-dry-dog-food-continues.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19076207/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356203,00.html
http://pet-nutrition.suite101.com/article.cfm/salmonella_pet_food_recall_expanded
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051502363.html
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1/117/24691.html
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dog-food-recalled-for-possible-salmonella-problem
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/articles/2008/05/15/salmonella-outbreak-linked-to-dry-dog-food.html?PageNr=2

One expert thinks contamination of pet food is likely to become more commonplace.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/articles/2008/05/15/salmonella-outbreak-linked-to-dry-dog-food.html?PageNr=1

"There have been problems with pet foods before," said Dr. Pascal James Imperato, chairman of the department of preventive medicine and community health at the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center in New York City. "If the food had any animal product in it, there could have been contamination, or if it was being processed in a plant where they were also processing animal product, then contamination can easily occur," he said. "There is greater industrialization of the production of food products, both for humans and animals, and these are complex processing systems. Therefore, there is greater opportunity for contamination," Imperato said. "We are likely to see many more of these problems."

Secondly, a large percentage of all dogs carry salmonella, regardless of diet. This has been known for some time:
http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/document_fsheet.php?product_id=223

Animal-to-Human -- Salmonella can be acquired directly from pets (e.g. cats and dogs), reptiles, and birds. The feces of pets, especially those with diarrhea, contain Salmonella and humans can become infected if they do not wash their hands after contact with pets or pet feces.15
http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/document_fsheet.php?product_id=223#15

The pets may suffer Salmonellosis as a reverse zoonosis, with infection transmitted from human-to-pet and subsequently back to other humans. Salmonella can also be found in healthy dogs and cats at rates of up to 36 percent and 18 percent, respectively.52
http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/document_fsheet.php?product_id=223#52
http://www.bravorawdiet.com/recallinfo.html#merck

Here's what the Merck Veterinary Manual says about Salmonella in pets:

"Many dogs and cats are asymptomatic carriers of Salmonellae. Clinical disease is uncommon, but when it is seen, it is often associated with hospitalization, another infection or debilitating condition in adults, or exposure to large numbers of the bacteria in puppies and kittens." 2

To translate: Many dogs and cats carry Salmonella in their systems (as evidenced by the presence of Salmonella in their feces), but they rarely become ill. It is just a natural part of what lives in their GI systems. When illness does occur it is usually associated with an already ill animal who is already immune-compromised. Illness may also occur when young animals are exposed to very high numbers of the bacteria. This might happen if a puppy finds and licks the inside of an outdoor garbage can that has never been washed and is teeming with bacteria.

Research indicates that approximately 36 percent of healthy dogs and 17 percent of healthy cats carry Salmonella in their digestive tract.3 The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) agrees with these numbers.4 It is interesting to note that these numbers are based on kibble-fed dogs-which means that Salmonella is a natural part of life for our pets regardless of what they are eating.

The resistance to illness in dogs from Salmonella is apparent in a study of raw-fed dogs in Canada. In that study 16 dogs were deliberately fed commercial raw diets contaminated with Salmonella. None of those 16 dogs became ill. Additionally, only 7 of those 16 dogs shed Salmonella in their feces.5 While it was not further studied, one might speculate that the 9 dogs who ate Salmonella-contaminated food but did not shed it in their feces effectively neutralized the bacteria.

Even the FDA, in the FDA Consumer magazine, acknowledges that healthy pets rarely become ill from Salmonella contamination.6

2. http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfle=htm/bc/20900.htm

3. Hand, M.S., Thatcher, C.D., Remillard, R.L., and Roudebush, P. (2000)

Small Animal Clinical Nutrition. Mark Morris Institute. Pg. 36-42,188.

4. http://www.avma.org/reference/zoonosis/znsalmonellosis.asp

5. Finley, R., et al. (2007) The Risk of Salmonellae Shedding by Dogs Fed

Salmonella-contaminated Commercial Raw Food Diets. Can Vet J. Vol 48 #1. Pg. 69-75.

6. http://www.fda.gov/FDAC/departs/2000/500_upd.html#pigs

It is also interesting to note that humans can transmit salmonella to dogs:
http://www.vetmed.wisc.edu/pbs/zoonoses/GIk9fel/salmonella.html

Dogs and cats may suffer salmonellosis as a "reverse zoonosis," with infection transmitted from human-to-dog and subsequently back to other humans. Similarly, outbreaks of Salmonella infections in large animal teaching hospitals have been linked to the introduction of bacteria from infected human personnel, with subsequent spread to animals and then back to other human workers.

In one of the studies quoted on your website as part of your proof, in the first article only ten dogs were used to test for salmonella. The authors themselves state:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC339295/

"Although these results are suggestive, they are not statistically significant owing to the small number of dogs studied. Larger numbers of dogs or multiple stool samples from each dog might have allowed the results to reach statistical significance. Unfortunately, the limited funding to this private clinic for this study did not allow for the inclusion of more study animals or multiple cultures from individual subjects."

And, in another study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1716752/

Since this study was an experimental trial with laboratory beagles, results may not be completely indicative of what would be experienced with owned dogs of various breeds. Determining that the raw food diet was the main source of salmonellae shedding in owned dogs would be more complicated, as they could be exposed to several other possible sources of salmonellae, including other animals; other food items, including treats; the environment; and their owners.

http://www.asph.org/vetmed/ppt/lefebvre.ppt
www.asph.org/vetmed/ppt/lefebvre.ppt

And information from your friends in Canada again. This is slide show that has been prepared to show the dangers of raw fed foods for therapy dogs. It was a great job of skewing the results. They show the high incidence of bacteria found in 40 raw fed dogs stools, but somehow tend to downplay the amounts found in dogs fed a dry diet. This study shows:

Raw fed dogs (40)
Dry food fed dogs (156)

0 - for Vanomycin resistant enterococci
1 - for Vanomycin resistant enterococci

1 - for Methicillin resistant S Aureus
8 - for Methicillin resistant S Aureus

5 - for Clostridium difficile
40 -for Clostridium difficile

19 - for Salmonella
12 -for salmonella

31 - for E Coli
32 - for E Coli

While this study may show more Salmonella and E Coli in raw fed dogs, it shows higher results for the bacteria Clostridium, Methicillin resistant S Aureus and has Vanomycin resistant enterococci. And the amount of Salmonella and E Coli, while not as high as raw fed dogs, is significant.

My conclusion is that, in your hurry to label the raw diet as the culprit, and eliminate its use from your volunteers in your program, you are only putting the spotlight on the issue that all dogs can carry pathogens regardless of diet . This could cause all dogs to be banned from use in any health facility. In essence, I see your new rule as 'shooting yourself in the foot'. I feel in your confidence and your bias of proving a raw diet could spread pathogens, you forgot to do a full research on the issue. Salmonella is everywhere, including dry dog food, the soil, pond water and even from humans. Understand you are looking at narrow parameters that need a more careful and extensive study on how pathogens are spread and how to use sensible and effective prevention.

I don't see a problem with allowing dogs into nursing homes, hospitals or hospices, as long as good hygiene is applied. That would include bathing the dogs, insuring therapy dogs are flea and tick free, making sure the dog's are properly exercised (ie pottied) before a visit, and carrying sterilization equipment (bleach, bags and paper towels) in case of an accident. All research points out pathogens are spread by stool or saliva. That would mean not allowing the dogs to lick the clients, making sure the coats and skin are recently bathed and trusting your volunteers. Your volunteers are the backbone of your organization, and they do this loving volunteer work without compensation and give the Delta group thousands of volunteer hours. I hope you take this email in the light it was written, in that sometimes, we need to look at any situation with more study and thought, and understand the healing, joy and encouragement dogs give so many people. Being a patient with serious illness and being away from home often stifles recovery. Pets, as you know, bring hope, happiness and support to begin the process of healing.

I hope you rethink your position on this matter, and continue to allow your therapy dog work to bring joy to both your clients and your volunteers. My interest in researching this and writing to you is in memory to my Ch Blackwood Dante V Lyvngwerth CD and Ch Bourbon's Bravo of Blackwood, two Rottweilers I owned who were the recipients of the American Rottweiler Club TRUE award, for their many hours of therapy work. And yes, they both were fed a raw diet. They both worked in the intensive care units of hospitals in Tyler, Texas, for many years.

Lew Olson
PhD Natural Health
http://www.b-naturals.com/
Author of, "Raw and Natural Diets for Dogs"

Purina Peddles Influence at Delta Society

Is Delta's recent ban on raw fed dogs a payback for Purina's HUGE donation in 2008? The money was spread over two years, so that dried up this month.

Does Brenda Bax remain seated on the Delta Society Board of Directors as a result of her employer's financial muscle?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Talk about your conflict of interest!! I think we have found it! 

http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/Veterinary+news/Purina-giving-400000-to-Delta-Society/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/514828?contextCategoryId=204

http://tinyurl.com/DeltaPurina



Purina giving $400,000 to Delta Society


May 1, 2008


By: DVM Newsmagazine


DVM NEWSMAGAZINE



ST. LOUIS — Purina will dish out more than $400,000 to the Delta Society for its animal-assisted therapy.


Purina's two-year pledge ranks as the largest grant ever received by the Delta Society.


"Through its Pet Partners program, Delta Society shows that dogs and cats are unique creatures that can help benefit the health and well-being of humans," says Brenda Bax, brand director at Nestle Purina PetCare.

Delta Farce

Delta Society Bans Dogs' Natural Diet!

The Delta Society is an association that coordinates activities of therapy and service dogs nationwide. In a move that can only be described as "boneheaded," the Delta Society has banned from participation in its programs any dog that is fed raw proteins. Citing myths, hearsay and studies (which they seemingly did not read) regarding the diet of the dog and risks to human health, they foolishly promote unsubstantiated "old wives tales" that were promulgated decades ago by...yep, you guessed it....the commercial pet food industry. The vote by the Delta Society Board of Directors to ban raw-fed dogs was reported to be unanimous.

Examine the board of directors list on the Delta Society website, and who do we find?

Brenda Bax, Delta's Secretary. Coincidentally, Brenda is also a marketing director for Purina.

It's interesting to note that the very study that Delta quotes to support their decision did not find a higher rate of pathogens in raw-fed dogs vs those fed a dry diet. In fact, just the opposite! There was a significantly higher rate of several pathogenic bacteria in dogs fed a dry diet, including Campylobacter, MRSA (resistant Staph), and VRE (Vancomycin resistant Enterococcus). The rates of E. coli were essentially the same in either raw-fed or dry fed dogs, with salmonella higher in the raw fed group....but existing in the dry food group as well.

Studies show that pathogens can reside naturally in dogs' intestinal tracts...regardless of their diet. In one study, over 1/3 of dogs were found to carry salmonella. And these dogs were fed a diet of kibble. Imagine that! This shouldn't surprise us because salmonella is present in a wide variety of foodstuffs, in water, and in dust and dirt. But, dogs transmitting GI pathogens to people....just not happening. Where is the evidence?

Humans can also carry pathogens without suffering illness. Disease risk varies depending on the immune resistance of the individual. Salmonella is not limited to protein sources, and has been found in vegetables, including such unsuspecting sources as tomatoes and peanut butter. Somehow, I don't see us hysterically banning salads or peanut butter in nursing homes. But raw fed dogs.....not allowed!
 
From the Delta website:

Did you know?

Delta is a Greek symbol of change and is represented by a triangle. Delta Society’s triangle represents the interconnectivity of Pets, Pet Owners, and Medical Professionals (human and animal). Together they change lives.

Yet it seems Delta sorely lacks the knowledge base that marks true progress and "change." And shouldn't one have a somewhat enquiring mind to be dubbed a "Medical Professional?" Rather than one who blindly accepts commonly-held "facts" that are eventually proven false.

Hey, I'm just sayin'....

Luckily, Delta has extensive pet loss and bereavement pages on their website, including a resource directory and a page of articles and research related to pet loss.

Forcing their participants' dogs to eat a diet of dry stale foodstuffs, bereft of natural vitamins and minerals, and laced with chemicals and yes even pathogens....their owners are definitely going to need all that bereavement info. Dogs have too short a lifespan under the best of circumstances, but commercial foods have just recently killed droves of pets....melamine, cyanuric acid, vitamin and mineral toxicosis, aflatoxin poisoning.....killing our dogs by the thousands. Documented!

News that Brenda Bax probably doesn't want to get out!

As to the rest of Delta Society, I hope when they get to the land of Oz, the wizard has some extra brains to pass out. And maybe some bones for the dogs?

Heaven forbid, dogs eating raw bones! That just goes against nature.

.

http://www.deltasociety.org/Page.aspx?pid=638

A Little Knowledge Can Be Dangerous

A recent crusade against Nutro and other commercial pet foods has been undertaken by an "independent" group calling themselves the "Pet Food Product Safety Association". The PFPSA most recent claim is that a specific batch of Nutro cat food contained toxic levels of Vitamin D.


Nutro performed its own independent testing of the food. Here is their response to the issue:

Name: Julie Lawless
Subject: Info for you on recent Nutro story on PFPSA

This is Julie Lawless, corporate communications manager for Mars Petcare US and The Nutro Company. I wanted to make sure you had the latest information from us on the Nutro story posted on PFPSA for your readers. We conducted a thorough investigation and sent a retained sample of the food from the production run for Vitamin D testing. I wanted to share with you what we found (see info below). Thanks again, Julie
As a result of a consumer inquiry regarding possible elevated levels of Vitamin D in one lot of NUTRO® NATURAL CHOICE® Chicken Meal and Rice cat food, we sent a retained sample – taken at our factory from this specific lot – for independent testing. The lab that conducted this test is well-known for its expertise in Vitamin D analysis.

The test results confirm our previous analysis that the Vitamin D levels are well within AAFCO requirements and achieve the target Vitamin D level designed for this food. NUTRO® NATURAL CHOICE® cat food does not contain elevated levels of Vitamin D.

Claims of elevated levels of Vitamin D are being reported on the website of the Pet Food Product Safety Alliance (PFPSA). Our test results clearly indicate that PFPSA’s information is incorrect. In addition to the test results, a number of facts question the validity of the PFPSA claims.

Conversations with the consumer’s own veterinarian did not indicate that food was the cause of the cat’s illness. Furthermore, blood test results presented on the PFPSA.org website are not consistent with a diagnosis of a cat that has been consuming elevated levels of Vitamin D.

At Nutro, quality and safety are our most important priorities. We stand by the safety of our food. The consumer’s cat is now in good health and we are gratified that our food did not contribute to its recent illness.

Wondering whether to trust the PFPSA or Nutro on this issue, I visited the PFPSA website. http://www.pfpsa.org/ This website is filled with inaccuracies, half-truths and downright dangerous information!

On the page touting recent "news" they is a tirade against Nutro for a presumed problem with their cat food. Here is a direct quote from that page discussing the cat supposedly affected by hypervitaminosis D from tainted Nutro food.

"ANALYSIS: High white blood cells and high lymphocytes generally indicate some kind of immune response. Diseases, allergies, toxins, drugs and foreign bodies can all trigger such a reaction See link. The other high values are consistent with liver problems and possible impairment of the kidneys."

Well we don't have any report of what exactly is meant by "high".... few specific results are mentioned. High results across the board on blood tests most often indicate....dehydration! The main indicator of kidney function, creatinine, is not mentioned, so it is unclear why they believe there is "potential kidney impairment." From a study of basic anatomy, one would know that lymphocytes ARE a variety of white blood cell, and significant elevation of white blood cell count is usually associated with infection. Less likely are the other problems cited here. ALT can rise if the patient is taking medications metabolized by the liver, such as tylenol, aspirin and antibiotics. Viral diseases such as hepatitis, cytomegalovirus and herpes simplex -- can also elevate the ALT, as can gall bladder disease. One must evaluate these finding in conjunction with the clinical presentation and assessment of the patient...lab results alone cannot be relied on in most situations.

The entire "news" page rants on with erroneous logic and unreasonable analysis and conclusions, asserting several times that Vitamin D is rat poison. Well, just about ANYTHING in excess is toxic....including water.

The PFPSA states

"No reasonable person, of average intelligence, could view the research, data, circumstances and symptoms, without reaching the inevitable conclusion this food was the sole cause of this pet's near death experience."

I don't think we are dealing with any "reasonable person of average intelligence" on this PFPSA website.

I also visited their "recepie" page. Setting aside the fact that they can't even manage to spell the word "recipe" correctly, I continued on. There is a grand total of ONE recipe on this page, giving the impression that variety in the diet is inconsequential. There is no mention of the benefits of fish and fish oil, no mention of natural sources of vitamins and minerals such as liver and eggs. The "recepie" includes the use of crushed vitamins and Ca-Mg-Zn tabs with NO MENTION of any sort of dosage. Good lord, isn't this the very problem that they are criticising Nutro for? Again the assertion that Vitamin D is "rat poison"...they fail to mention any natural sources of vitamins A and D that are necessary to good health such as fish, liver in addition to eggs....all of which should be included on a regular basis as part of a healthy, varied diet for pets.

The PFPSA "recepie" further instructs us to add a powdered supplement of the amino acid taurine, because according to this group "there is too little of it in lean muscle meat to meet your pet's needs." This is patently absurd. The richest source of taurine is seafood and meat, so if there is a basis of meat in the diet, lack of taurine will not be a problem. It is high heat and pressure involved with producing kibble and canned food that can destroy taurine. And remember, the sole source of powdered taurine today is China....a risky source as we have seen with importation of tainted supplements in the recent past debacle involving melamine and cyanuric acid. Why would PFPSA suggest that anyone add supplements to their pet food, most likely sourced from China, with no dosing information? This is highly irresponsible.

I believe that commercial pet food is a poor source of nutrition for our pets, and am all for education and information, but overstating the case is not helpful. It is difficult to take a source seriously when they don't do their homework and don't have even a basic, minimal understand the topic at hand.

Having extensively researched dog and cat nutrition personally, I have come across several reliable and useful reference sources. The best overall site for factual, practical and useful information on pet food is Lew Olsen's B-Naturals website. http://www.b-naturals.com/

A visit to this website will provide the reader with a wealth of information about commercial vs home made diets, raw vs cooked foods. Variety in the diet is stressed. Sample recipes are included. Lew also has some fascinating articles on the history of commercial pet foods.

Another excellent site is Mary Straus's website http://www.dogaware.com/ which contains comprehensive information on dog nutrition and health.

Here are links to a series of articles on dog nutrition that summarize and explain important details:

http://mysite.verizon.net/coatcloset/id57.html
http://mysite.verizon.net/coatcloset/id58.html
http://mysite.verizon.net/coatcloset/id61.html
Summary with recipes:
http://mysite.verizon.net/coatcloset/id64.html

Let's research and present the facts on pet nutrition rationally, basing our decisions on knowledge and research.